- A U.S. marshal's shooting of fugitive Daniel Meinhart was deemed legally justified.
- Meinhart had a violent history but was unarmed during the standoff in November 2024.
- District Attorney Sim Gill highlighted the officer's perception of threat as key to justification.
SALT LAKE CITY — A deputy with the U.S. Marshals Service was legally justified last year in shooting and injuring a wanted fugitive during a standoff, even though the fugitive was unarmed, the Salt Lake County district attorney announced Friday.
Daniel Lynn Meinhart, 43, was on probation and had multiple warrants out for his arrest when he was spotted by members of the Violent Fugitive Apprehension Strike Team on Nov. 4 in his Dodge Charger in the parking lot of a business near 900 East and 2100 South. Deputies noted that Meinhart had a "violent criminal history, which included multiple aggravated assaults and attempted murder of a police officer, had a history of fleeing, was a gang member, had a firearm and had made recent statements about 'not going back,'" according to District Attorney Sim Gill's final report.
Marshals monitored Meinhart using the Department of Public Safety helicopter while deputies got into position to take him into custody. As deputies entered the parking lot in unmarked vehicles, Meinhart recognized them as law enforcers and drove off. Near 922 E. 2100 South, Meinhart "drove onto the sidewalk, knocked over a light pole in the parking strip and continued on the sidewalk before colliding into a brick wall and getting pinned in from behind by a pursuing unmarked vehicle," the report states.
Deputies took cover behind their vehicles as they ordered Meinhart to get out of his car. In surveillance video from the helicopter, Meinhart's vehicle is seen creating a cloud of smoke as his tires spun, attempting to escape, but his vehicle was wedged between law enforcement vehicles and a light pole and did not move. Officers fired rounds of pepper spray into his car. They also threw a "flash bang" near Meinhart's vehicle, which is a grenade-like device designed to temporarily disorient a person.
Meinhart responded by rolling down his window and holding a "black object up across his chest with his finger indexed and yelled that he was 'not going back' and that he was 'going to kill,'" according to the report. "As Mr. Meinhart continued to move with his right hand holding the black object across his chest, (a deputy) fired a less lethal 40mm round at the driver's window and deputy (Charlie) Sandness fired four 9mm rounds from his handgun," the report states.
"I could see him doing this, like he's trying to decide what his next move is, but I see something black in his hands. And I said, I yelled out, 'Hey, he's got something in his, in his hands. I'm just watching him,'" Sandness said.
Sandness fired four rounds, striking Meinhart twice.
Two more rounds of pepper spray were fired into Meinhart's vehicle after he was shot, "but Mr. Meinhart continued to not comply (with officer's commands)," the report states.
After several minutes of seeing no additional movement from Meinhart, a drone was used to verify that Meinhart's hands were empty before deputies pulled him out of the vehicle and rendered aid.
Inside the car, investigators did not find a gun. "However, they did locate a black cellphone on the driver's seat as well as a shotgun-shaped lighter," according to the report.
Meinhart survived his injuries and was later charged in 3rd District Court. He pleaded guilty in July to failing to stop for police, a third-degree felony.
During a press conference Friday to announce his decision about the police shooting, Gill noted that even though Meinhart was not armed and did not point whatever was in his hands directly at deputies, Sandness' perception of what was happening — including believing Meinhart may have a gun — and due to the totality of the circumstances, made his use of deadly force legally justified.
"What is crucial for our analysis is what is going through the officer's mind at that moment when the decision to fire is made?" Gill said. "The issue isn't whether there was an actual gun; the question is: Was there an object that could be perceived as a gun that is informing the officer in the totality of the circumstances in this moment?
"In this context, given what we had to reconstruct and what we had, the team's conclusion was it was not an unreasonable fear or decision for that officer to fire," Gill said.
